|
Grex > Music2 > #279: Napster: Thieves or Coolness? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 21 new of 206 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 186 of 206:
| 
Sep 27 05:59 UTC 2000 |
Out of curiosity, why is photocopying of an entire book considered "fair use"?
What's fair the the copyright holder of the book? Instead of paying him for
an additional copy, you either got off scot free, or paid money for use of
the copy machine, which undoubtedly wasn't the copyright holder's machine.
|
brighn
|
|
response 187 of 206:
|
Sep 27 13:52 UTC 2000 |
My attitude as well. The only times I could see copying an entire book as
fair (morally if not legally) would be:
(a) It's your book
(b) It's public domain
(c) It's out of print and not attainable (new)
(d) It's your copy of a book, and your reason for copying it is to preserve
the original while you make notes, etc.
Going to the library and copying an entire Stephen King novel, front to back,
is as immoral (and should be as illegal) as dubbing an entire CD you borrow
from a friend (that latter of which is apparently technically illegal, but
immune from prosecution, according to posts placed here earlier).
Not the "as immoral" in the context of my earlier posts. =} Definitely a
"shame on you, naughty boy" level of offence, not a "burn in hell you impudent
creature of evil" level of offense.
|
polygon
|
|
response 188 of 206:
|
Sep 27 18:31 UTC 2000 |
The boundaries of "fair use" have never been strictly defined in the law.
There are four factors, including the effect of the copying on the market
for the book (hardly relevant when the book is out of print). Naturally
most of the discussion and litigation have been on activities that make
and distribute multiple copies of copyrighted material.
However, to quote from a document prepared for the University of
Pennsylvania by its Office of General Counsel, quoted in the university
Handbook:
"The making of a single copy of copyrighted material for a teacher's
personal use in teaching, scholarship, or research will almost always
be a fair use."
|
polygon
|
|
response 189 of 206:
|
Sep 27 18:38 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 190 of 206:
|
Sep 27 18:39 UTC 2000 |
To rephrase that: thinking of books which I have *copied* in their
entirety, I can't think of a single one which is currently in print.
And many of them are public domain.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 191 of 206:
|
Sep 27 19:41 UTC 2000 |
If the book isn't in print, and there's no way to contact the copyright holder
to provide you a copy of your own for a price, then OK, that seems reasonable
that you should be able to make your own copy, if borrowing the library's copy
doesn't work. But if the book *is* in print, if it's supposedly fair use to
make one's personal copy via reproduction, why doesn't the instructor just
tell the students to each go and make their own personal copies? That just
couldn't be right, as the copyright holder would be shorted compensation many
times over. (Of course, it's not a practical reality, as, at 10 cents a page,
the cost and aggravation of making a photocopy of an entire book is not likely
to be practical.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 192 of 206:
|
Sep 27 19:55 UTC 2000 |
Because there may only be one copy of the book in the library.
I used a large part of an out-of-print book as one text in a class at UM.
It is impractical for 25 students to coordinate borrowing the book and
making copies, so we did it for them. However I first got permission from
the publisher, which they granted.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 193 of 206:
|
Sep 27 20:11 UTC 2000 |
Yes, as I said, OK if out of print. But I was referring to *in print*.
|
polygon
|
|
response 194 of 206:
|
Sep 27 20:16 UTC 2000 |
Creating multiple copies either directly or indirectly is not the same
as making a single personal copy, regardless of the other circumstances.
That Pennsylvania text I quoted goes on immediately -- in the next
sentence -- to warn that making multiple copies for students can be
problematic.
I suppose if I copied a Stephen King novel to read at the beach, that
might be seen differently than making copies in the course of research,
which is what I do.
|
brighn
|
|
response 195 of 206:
|
Sep 27 20:19 UTC 2000 |
You also hit the nail on the head there, btw.
Why copy a 200-page book which costs $25, when the copy would cost $10 (100
copies at 10c), in order to get a much worse copy?
that's why, in grad school, I only copied the academic books, which run much
more than $25... academic press runs can cost anywhere from $40 into the
hundreds (of course, part of that is because of the limited market, which is
further restricted by people making copies... hence the vicious cycle).
|
polygon
|
|
response 196 of 206:
|
Sep 27 20:23 UTC 2000 |
Copies at the U-M library are 7 cents with a copy card. Finding a
specific book that was published 50 years ago is difficult and expensive.
And I can mark up the copy.
|
polygon
|
|
response 197 of 206:
|
Sep 27 20:25 UTC 2000 |
Er, I should say, finding a specific old book is time-consuming, expensive,
and often futile, even with Ebay and Bibliofind.
|
brighn
|
|
response 198 of 206:
|
Sep 27 21:10 UTC 2000 |
Precisely. Which is why it makes sense to copy entire out-of-print books and
in-print academic books, and less sense to copy entire in-press mainstream
books, economically speaking.
|
raven
|
|
response 199 of 206:
|
Oct 14 22:44 UTC 2000 |
Now linked to cyber punk along with the other 2 mp3 items.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 200 of 206:
|
May 4 04:43 UTC 2001 |
Prince appeared on The Tonight Show this evening. Leno said something about
Napster, to which Prince replied, "The artists don't get paid anyway." So
Leno asked for clarification, mentioning Mariah Carey's $20M contract. Prince
pointed out that an album sells for $18 and asked how much of that would Leno
give the artist. Leno said, "Half", so Prince said that 1 million copies
would mean $10M to Mariah, 2 million would be $20M, and 3 million would be
$30M: "I think Mariah got screwed."
How long does it take to sell a million copies?
|
carson
|
|
response 201 of 206:
|
May 4 22:49 UTC 2001 |
(it depends on the artist. for example, Janet Jackson's most recent
album entered at #1 on the Billboard charts after selling over 600,000
copies in its first week of release. on the other hand, Dido's album
has been out for nearly two years and is only triple-platinum, with a
significant portion of those sales coming within the past few months.)
(most artists don't "go platinum" [sell a million copies], but Mariah
does so routinely. each of her first eight [!] albums sold over 3
million copies.)
|
ashke
|
|
response 202 of 206:
|
May 5 01:17 UTC 2001 |
Well, unless you're a boy band...don't forget them.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 203 of 206:
|
May 5 04:26 UTC 2001 |
That's about what I thought. I'm reminded of a scene from _The Glenn Miller
Story_. His prospective father-in-law is disparaging his profession and
asks how much he makes per record. Miller answers, "Two or three cents."
"And how many did you sell last year?" "Five hundred thousand," and starts
to walk off. Father-in-law starts counting on his fingers, and starts, "But
that's . . ." Miller looks back and says, "Yes, it is" and leaves. In
the Thirties, $10,000 was a fair amount of money. Today, it's not so good.
|
ashke
|
|
response 204 of 206:
|
May 5 06:05 UTC 2001 |
not when you have to pay lawyers, studio time, other things related to the
album and THEN you pay for your house, expenses...
|
dbratman
|
|
response 205 of 206:
|
May 9 21:39 UTC 2001 |
But don't the artists get a bit more than 2 or 3 cents per copy now?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 206 of 206:
|
May 10 03:33 UTC 2001 |
That depends entirely on what kind of deal they signed..
|